From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Scott Wood Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] dt/bindings: Introduce the FSL QorIQ DPAA BMan portal(s) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 13:09:48 -0500 Message-ID: <1414519788.23458.85.camel@snotra.buserror.net> References: <1413986972-621-1-git-send-email-Emilian.Medve@Freescale.com> <1413986972-621-2-git-send-email-Emilian.Medve@Freescale.com> <20141022142931.GA4010@leverpostej> <54480DE6.4090604@Freescale.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <54480DE6.4090604@Freescale.com> Sender: linux-doc-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Emil Medve Cc: Mark Rutland , "galak@kernel.crashing.org" , "corbet@lwn.net" , "robh+dt@kernel.org" , "ijc+devicetree@hellion.org.uk" , "galak@codeaurora.org" , Pawel Moll , "Geoff.Thorpe@freescale.com" , "linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org" , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-doc@vger.kernel.org" List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2014-10-22 at 15:04 -0500, Emil Medve wrote: > Hello Mark, > > > Thanks for having a look at this > > On 10/22/2014 09:29 AM, Mark Rutland wrote: > > I'd feel rather uncomfortable accepting a > > binding that we already believe to be insufficient to describe the > > hardware. > > > > What do you expect to change? > > Related bindings seem incomplete. As such, the PAMU binding (pamu.txt) > covers incompletely a dynamic LIODN assignment/programming model. The > current driver uses a static assignment scheme that the binding needs to > include. I also suspect that once the driver starts supporting the > dynamic LIODN assignment/programming we might find some wrinkles How is this different from any of the other QorIQ bindings that have been merged without such a disclaimer? The static LIODN model is already there, even if documentation is missing, and should continue to be supported even if we eventually implement a dynamic LIODN model. > >> + > >> + bman-portals@ff4000000 { > >> + #address-cells = <1>; > >> + #size-cells = <1>; > >> + compatible = "simple-bus"; > >> + ranges = <0 0xf 0xf4000000 0x200000>; > >> + > >> + bman-portal@0 { > >> + compatible = "fsl,bman-portal-1.0.0", "fsl,bman-portal"; > >> + reg = <0x0 0x4000 0x100000 0x1000>; > > > > It would be easier to read is each entry had its own set of brackets. > > Initially this looked to me like a single 64-bit address/size pair. > > Something like <>, <>? It doesn't seem widely used but I agree is more > readable. I can include it in the the next spin The older PPC device trees haven't used it much but I think it's pretty common in the newer ARM trees. -Scott